I hated Brennan. I was proud of Russell for not getting frustrated with him. He lied a couple of times and it was sooooo ridiculous. He should want the truth and not block the defense from their case
Also the moment Brennan yelled that John O'Keefe foot was run over by the SUV which was a total untruth John had nothing, no injuries on his foot at all Then we saw Brennan lie everything together. Dr Alessi in his closing completely blew away everything Hank suggested, Alessi's Devine intervention. He dismantled all the evil things Brennan tried to do to this wonderful woman, trying to discredit her. She is a pure soul who wants real justice for John O'Keefe and Karen Read! I love that woman so much!
@@WvBeurden2222 you say that, but what Brennan stated as fact in form of question will stick in jury’s head like fact. It’s so unfair and disingenuous.
I thought the same thing. But he is not going to fool anyone as we all know that it wasn’t car accidents. And it would be nice to see his own explanation to why Johns injures appeared to be something else and not of car accidents. But of Dog bites.. I hope people and juries will see through his BS. I would like to him to explain which part of the Car that Caused such injuries on Johns Body..
@ yes I agree with you However I have always thought that the justice should be for the truth nothing but the truth.and false accusations and wrongfully conviction of innocent people because the police didn’t do their proper investigation not the other way around.were like in this case this man he is trying to discredit the real professional.were like I. The last trial she testified.so he is trying to throw his wight around to intimidate Karen Reed lawyers and her witnesses..anyway the only thing that matters is Karen Read to set free and Justice to John O’keef
Not just an ER doctor, but an ER doctor at a trauma 1 center. This lady is a unicorn. I believe she's one of those lifelong learners and wants to help EVERYONE. I don't think she's "pro Karen," she just saw what clearly looks like bite marks and wanted to do the right thing.
I agree that she has a lot of experience and I maybe replying too soon I'm just now starting to watch this replay tonight but the biggest problem I have with this witness is that in the 1st trial and even last video she repeatedly says that she teaches nothing is 100% even stated herself in the last time she was being cross examined that was the reason she maybe sounded less than confident in the last trial but now all of the sudden she is now 100% certain?? I would hammer her on words home!
I agree that she has a lot of experience and I maybe replying too soon I'm just now starting to watch this replay tonight but the biggest problem I have with this witness is that in the 1st trial and even last video she repeatedly says that she teaches nothing is 100% even stated herself in the last time she was being cross examined that was the reason she maybe sounded less than confident in the last trial but now all of the sudden she is now 100% certain?? I would hammer her on words home!
Yeah, I also think both things could be true. She could have hit him with a car and left him to die and the dog could have been let out alone to potty come across his body and calls the injuries after death?
@deborahreed1142 are you suggesting they let her out in the front yard and didn't see him and for some reason she just chewed on his arm but nowhere else? The yard isn't that deep, and don't they have a fenced in backyard?
@@deborahreed1142 and he could have died in the house that was owned by a first responder who didn’t come outside when emergency services were on his lawn.
@@lynngallagher7456 Well gee, I don't know. I can imagine a WHOLE LOT of things considering the clothes weren't entered into evidence for SIX WEEKS!!! Give me a logical explanation for that?!
Did you know we found Chloe? I don't care. Did you know we measured and made impressions of her teeth? I don't care, wouldn't matter. LallyGag, anything to add? Help me out here.
@@Brooke2000 if her motive was money wouldn’t she try to be on the side of the CW that has endless funds? And, not the woman being railroaded into poverty? I think Dr. Russel just knows her truth.
I had to stop watching this “interrogation”. I haven’t seen an expert treated this way before. If I were a juror I would be totally turned off and discredit him.
@ that not true that was already debunked. She is guilty and she admitted to doing it. She just thought they would give her a slap on the wrist rather that the 15- life. She changed her mind. Look at all the pre-trial stuff.
Brennan was himself testifying during his questioning of Dr. Russell. He was giving testimony and facts not in evidence as if he himself was qualified to interpret the cause of wounds. I found it highly unethical and inappropriate.
@@physics4290 He's testing the waters. I think we all know a lot more latitude is given in cross examination. And, this wasn't in front of a jury. It's incredibly likely she'll be testifying. It's my opinion Brennan already knows that.
When a prosecutor or defense attorney questions a witness with an insulting or hostile manner this creates a perception that they don't have anything legitimate to discredit the testimony. This prosecutor's "way" of questioning wouldn't convince me .
I wholly agree that she should not ONLY be able to testify on the dog bite, but EXPAND her testimony, based on her full background. Unfortunately, I have a feeling the judge will not allow that.
Brennens arguments are a bit ridiculous. He’s clearly afraid of what she’s going to sound like in front of a jury and this is a dirty way to try and get that testimony booted
Brennan knows that in a Level 1 Trauma center, the ER doctor needs to carefully research all possibilities of medical diagnosis. The trauma patients just need to wait hours or days while the ER doctor reads technical manuals and various articles.
@@GPDogDrool That's not at all what I meant. I even said.... He knows (and probably expected from the beginning) she'd be testifying. Dr. Green may be an entirely different story. Regardless I still believe the CW is filing these motions as free plays.
@@teresaperry7928 I think it's a good point. And I also think Alessi said it plainly in his closing. The arguments Brennan's making are for cross. He hit the nail on the head. Brennan seemed to be taking advantage of the opportunity to see where he could trip her up, where her strengths were, how she responded to photos vs. material, etc.. He could ask questions he didn't know the answers to (within reason). Simply looking at it as a legal maneuver, I think it's quite interesting.
He can’t break her because she’s the read deal, smart with top notch credentials, she’s earned the right to have her opinion treated with gravitas . But his repeated disrespect damaged her, her opinion hasn’t changed but if compare her testimonies, she’s verbally less self assured. She’ll be more apprehensive and less authoritative coming trial and I think this was what the prosecutor’s objective was.
Not only that, but the AARCA rocket scientists also said Karen Read's car never hit John Okeefe or was involved in a pedestrian collision, so that's a double whammy. Too bad the keystone cops of Canton and corrupt MSP didn't document their so-called car accident case with REAL evidence instead of planted evidence. I just want to see the photo they took of the "cracked" tailight" but I never will, because it doesn't exist.
The CW already has a court recognized dog bite expert on their witness list. The Defense couldn't find an expert before the last trial and out of no where came Dr Russell in the middle of the trial.
@@nelsona8285I didn’t see his name on the witness list. But even if they have this opinion on their side, the CW would have had every right to call him as a rebuttal witness. Why didn’t they?
@@TheTrialChannel_ He's a witness now, they couldn't get them in time during the first trial because they weren't expecting a headline chaser to suddenly jump to the defense mid trial. Unlike the fraud Dr. Russell, the current CW witness is a dog bite expert and has testified as such in multiple trials.
@@TheTrialChannel_ I am referring to witnesses for the second trial. Remember, Dr Russell showed up in the middle of the first trial claiming the wounds on the arm were bite marks. The CW doesn't want to incur the cost for a rebuttal witness in the second trial since the opinion of Dr Russell regarding the wounds being dog bites is junk. The CW also has spent alot of money for an independent accident reconstructionist which I do think they need to explain the accident in a better presentation than the first trial. The CW also has an expert that will testify to the Lexus computer information. In the first trial, CW spent money for two experts to debunk the Defense lie about the 2:27 Google search. My question to you is why couldn't Jackson or Yanetti find a court recognized dog bite expert BEFORE the first trial started? There are MANY of these experts that testify in court when home insurance companies are sued for home owner's claims against a family dog biting someone. The No 1 claimant in these suits are postal carriers who often have only their statement and the injury when claiming a dog bite.
Considering that in the past hearings, he has admitted to not being fully aware of the prior trial, I found him to be pompous and manipulative. He did a lot of gaslighting, and word twisting. I think Dr Russell was grace under pressure. She didn't let him push her buttons. I can't say I'm surprised by his demeanor and presentation style based on his resume.
Not only was Brennan extremely rude to a well educated witness I think he was disingenuous when asking if she was an accident reconstructionist. That is not why she is here and he knows that. I do not believe AJ would treat a witness like her in this manner. Only witnesses like Proctor, who is to say the least not a credible witness.
Yes pls Peter do follow every moment of these hearings! Will be fascinating to hear how Brennan wants to exclude the Arca testimony. Thanking you so much!🙏😊🌟
Listening to the lawyer who didn’t seem to understand trauma medicine effectively testifying about the state’s case made me come to the conclusion that the state doesn’t not have a case regarding to the car accident. As someone in health care, I would be leaning against the state if I were on the jury.
@@riannarodriguez9759 👏👏 Everyone seems to be missing the fact this is indeed the case. The prosecution is so strong they suddenly want to say the judge was WRONG for allowing any of the defense experts ? Yet Trooper Paul was a genius. 😂😂
The bit about methodology was so frustrating to me because it's trying to distill a multi-disciplinary approach into a single unified one. To diagnose a heart attack, a doctor uses laboratory testing (which uses multiple scientific methods and assays), ECG readings, physical presentation, in addition to experience and education to diagnose a heart attack. There are general guidelines that most heart attacks will align with but there are unusual presentations that can only be caught by using all of these methods together. Due to the differences in dog breeds there can't be a definitive "dog bite standard".
I was thinking about autoimmune diseases. Is all about markers, elimination and sometimes the person even starts suppressive treatment without a certain diagnosis, because the markers don’t point to a specific condition.
This Prosecutor He reminds me of someone in England who l used to work with.who has similar voice to him.and I never liked him as he always appeared to be Rude and arrogant just like him..
He’s no more arrogant and condescending then Miss Reed’s attorneys… They were arrogant and condescending. They were horrible to people… Why can’t he? You guys just already think she is not guilty which is so funny to me.
@@lynngallagher7456 I agree but there’s difference between this Brennan And Karen Reads Lawyers they are looking for truth and justice Were this one he is after over qualified waitress .and he is not looking for justice he is looking to victimise innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit. And he trying to discredit this wonderful lady with her many years of experience to change her mind there’s no comparison between Alan Jackson.. and him Alan Jackson is relevant and fighting for the rights and truth of justice
He badgered her for not going to the scene when his lead investigator didnt go to the scene yet decided Karen hit him. Brennan is awful. Its embarrassing. I feel he has no idea what he is doing or what a hypocrite he is being
Amazing, Lally said during the first trial that teeth comparison to wounds is a junk science yet they are going to try to do it with Chloe's mold. Basically volunteering that they are presenting junk science.
Shes going to have to do a good job of presenting why its junk science. The angel of the dog, angle of the arm, strength of the bite, whether the arm is flexed, momentum. All things that cannot be determined. There are too many variables.
@@KiraSieni Yep, it has been proven that you cannot match a specific bite to a specific set of teeth because there are indeed too many variables. Lally knew that but he wasn't intelligent enough to realize that that is not the same as identifying that a mark is from a bite (or from a car). Obviously those two are two very different things. And yet, they are apparently now going to try to prove that this mark doesn't come from Chloe? But that is irrelevant. They have to prove it was from a car lol not that it wasn't from a dog so why would Chloes dental impression mean anything at all lol.
@@kristiefanning161 So did you also illegally obtain a copy of the DOJ 3,000 page Grand Jury report? Because the rest of us didn't get that "exculpatory" evidence you claim to have seen.
@@beththompson417 I re-watched Court TV re-direct starting at 5 hours 12 minutes and saw NO reference about an FBI medical examiner claiming John O'Keefe's injuries were not caused by a car. Time Stamp 5 hours 54 minutes Defense said Hypothetical statement from Dr Walsh said "A vehicle backing into O'Keefe IS ONE OF MANY POSSIBLE causes of his death"
Imagine being in a Trauma 1 ED, seeing thousands of patients and running through differentials all the time and come up against this guy. He wanted to know back in December why she didn’t list all the papers she read on her CV. You don’t do that. My CV would have been volumes. You put peer reviewed papers you’ve written on your CV.
That was definitely cringe. Does this prosecutor put "I read Black's Law Dictionary" on his CV? 😅 He plays dumb all through this and ends up looking very stupid
@linh8768 a CV is the academic equivalent of a resume. It list qualifications, certifications, and notable academic achievements, such as published academic papers.
dr kinsey was on Brandi's channel. He ALSO said on her channel that he did not follow the trial and he was only looking what she sent him to do the interview. He hardly did research like the defense's medical expert did. What we learned is that the prosecution is watching RUclips. And they aren't able to get much. Their case REMAINS weak.
Dr Kinsey also said he didn't think it was caused by the taillight but Prosecutor didn't mention that lol Hope Defence watch the interview too so if Dr Russell is allowed to be an expert (imo she should be) if Prosecutor brings it up Defence can recross with that info too.
What has puzzled me from the beginning is why no one is referring to the strangeness of a man standing on the road on a cold night instead of going inside after the car leaves. Even stranger; he obligingly stands on the road as the car stops, goes into reverse, accelerates and runs into him. And doesn't take two steps to escape.
If I were her I would have told him I’ve answered your question, asked him if that was his personal opinion? He is extremely rude and disrespectful. Being a lawyer doesn’t give you an excuse to disrespect someone’s life work anymore than being a Doctor does to a patient. It’s surprising how “acceptable” being unprofessional is in this field. He appears very inadequate speaking to her that way. Way out of line. Oh yeah, when I was 5 a DOG bit off my shoe……..smh Also, this judge was a joke during the last case and needs to step aside for this one. She is following the same path she did previously.
By the way, did anybody else notice that he said OJO was launched 7’ from the road? So now the theory changed? Is not 30’ anymore? How did the deceased position changed between trials?
Like a lot of the women that i look up to and have learned from, she is a shining example of a strong woman who is confident in her knowledge and her expertise. The prosecutor picked the wrong person to try and undermine and undercut. Particularly when juxtaposed against the Commonwealth's collective of corrupt incompetents. I wish she would have said that i cannot identify a book that i referred to as a definitve resource because i have not written it yet.
She is an expert, he is asking for something to be explained in a simple manner that is complicated, he is refusing to accept her answer because it doesn’t meet his requirement, either because he is being obtuse or because he is being ingenious neither make him look good.
Because they all know that it wasn’t A Car Accident. Even before she got arrested they knew it wasn’t car accident.As their own investigators Corrupted Michael Proctor said himself that initially he thought it was do with fight. But then obviously the killers were his own best friend so he hard to change KR within 16 hours without even properly investigation. The question is to the Prosecutors is The Investigator Michael Proctor qualified to be detective.. and all the others who who participated in this case are they qualified to be detectives
54:13 idk how an imprint of Chloe’s teeth 2+ years after the incident would be allowable. How in the world does the defense KNOW it’s actually Chloe. If they allowed any imprints of her teeth tk be allowed this late in the gsme- we know the CW has zero desire for actual justice
It’s so aggravating. The CW needs to prove he was hit by a car. He wasn’t. The defense doesnt need to prove he was bitten by a dog. But they did. In my opinion, Aunty Bev is salty because the defense lawyers and experts are all smarter and more qualified than her.
Anyone following this case knows Officer O’Keefe was not hit by a car. I’m a MA resident and the police corruption is rampant to a degree you can’t imagine.
I don’t understand why the CW is fighting this expert. In the spirit of transparency and the pursuit of JUSTICE, the jury should be allowed to hear this expert testimony. It’s obvious to anybody with discernment that the CW is threatened because they don’t have an expert to refute her testimony.
They do have an expert already on their witness list that is COURT RECOGNIZED for dog bites. They don't think the claim should be allowed because there is no basis for her opinion and the evidence she did not look at shows it was a vehicle accident. No Dog DNA found on ANY hole in John O'Keefe's sweatshirt should block ANY argument there was a dog bite.
I believe they are trying to eliminate this witness due to the jury finding reasonable doubt. Also it takes the pressure off the prosecution by not discussing the inadequacy of collecting the swabs in a timely regulation manner.
I follwed this case from the beginning, imo the tail light did not cause those injuries. I think dr. Russell should be allowed to testify. This dr. Has so much experience, and has so much training and life experience. Also i thought i disliked Lally, but the new guy brings my level of dislike went through the roof.
Brennan is listed as 1 of Top 100 Trial Attorneys in the nation. If you could afford him, you would want him to take your case. Where is Yanetti ranked?
@@nelsona8285those rankings are purchased. I was in PR at a National company. We would get these solicitations on the mail. You pay to have profile included. Usually the PR department writes it and sends it in either a head shot.
@@SandyKnauerMorgan Dr Russell admitted she wasn't a court expert in a field of MEDICINE that she studied and practiced in the ER., but she wants the court to recognize her as a dog bite expert when she has NEVER testified in court pertaining to dog bites before. There are MANY court recognized dog bite experts that testify in insurance cases around the country when people claim a home owner's dog bit them. Why couldn't Jackson and Yanetti, experienced litigators, find one of those experts BEFORE the first trial started since it is a CRITICAL part of their Defense? My answer: No dog bite expert would agree with their claim.
Dr. Russell was also, for 7 yrs, the California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation Chief Medical Executive - Retired, Certified Correctional Healthcare Professional. She stated in the first case, she attended and spoke with numerous inmates who suffered dog bites from K9 police dogs.
how is he going to present his theory using these same standards to have any opinion, he basically wouldn't be able to present any experts for the State if they apply these same criteria.
I was stunned when Brennan questioned (attacked) Dr. Russell for not having her opinion on O'Keefe's wounds peer-reviewed. I have never heard any other expert witness challenged for this reason. Since when is it required for an expert opinion to be peer-reviewed? It's an OPINION, it's not a journal article or other publication.
@@archangel807 ther are MANY court recognized dog bite experts in the USA. If she wants to call herself a dog bite expert, she should know who these people are in order to consult with them. Vinni Politan interview with on of them shows the experts don't agree with her.
I loved this! It was interesting to hear the lawyers strategies and approaches. It was very cool to watch the expert hold her ground! Thanks for reviewing this!
Why? Because he’s acting like the defense? This trial will be much different, thank God. She should be allowed to be an expert, but he is also allowed to vigorously cross examine her. This Daubert hearing wasn’t the time for a lot of that, but he will have his chance. A preview of what is to come. Looking forward to it!
This! In Brennan’s cross examination of Dr Russell, he blatantly lied and made misleading statements. I don’t believe everything he says because of this.
Personally, if I was a juror I would find it a lot more acceptable to be aggressive with a counter witness or counter character witness. But when you’re dealing with experts, it rubs me the wrong way when you’re overly aggressive with them about their expertise. So nobody wants me on a jury now lol
@@RealityCheck24 Perhaps this isn't his only gear. This is a hearing. And cross examination. It is not the trial. And, I think it may be a bit hasty to judge him on one interaction with a witness. But, I understand people have first impressions and they may be hard to shake. However, as one of the top 100 trial attorneys in the country, I'm reserving judgement a bit longer.
@@nelsona8285But the shirt was wet from the snow, thrown on the floor in the ER, and then thrown in the trunk of the authorities for 2 weeks before testing.
You literally don't get more qualified to testify as this witness. Her testimony was very credible and convincing to me as I watched the trial. I don't think the prosecution would be fighting to exclude this witness if she did not have the very comprehensive experience and credibility that she has.
Actually...... You do. There's Animal Behavior experts, Dog bite experts, Emergency Veterinary medicine experts, Most pH.ds, peer reviewed articles or books on their line of work. I'm not sure why if Karen Read wants to push this narrative, why she's insisting with someone who is yes a very experienced ER doctor who's had experience in law enforcement earlier in her career. But, that's a very broad topic. Not to mention you're flying her from the other side of the country. She's never testified before about dog bites and gets tripped up on cross.
@@LazySusan.actually if you followed this case you would know NONE of those are allowed to testify to any of that per MA criminal law. So the comment, with all due respect, is completely pointless because NONE of those are medical doctors and therefore per MA criminal trial law unable to testify whatsoever to opine to injuries causation. Also, I think I’m going to roll with the person who has treated tens of thousands of dog bite wounds here.
@@JenHellmichSackett I have followed this case. For 2 years. Fully. Every hearing. Just because I may not have the rules of criminal evidence for the CW of Massachusetts memorized doesn't mean I'm not competent to make a informed opinion on this expert. Can you please direct me to the precedent for which you're referring to? From what I can find (which to be fair is a quick search) doesn't preclude the referenced experts from testifying as Veterinary emergency doctors, for instance, do require a medical license (rules 702 and 703).
@@LazySusan. So sorry if you took my comment as rude, that was totally not my intention but in re-reading it I can see how it sounded! It’s tough just reading context on typing but the judge stated it very clearly in her own ruling in trial 1 & then Alessi cited the rule and quote she gave in his closing. He references the law and rule #-I’ll try to re-listen later and send you the time stamp on here!
As a healthcare professional Brennan came across pompous, rude, condescending and mostly idiotic 😬 this was beyond the scope of the purpose of the daubert hearing, he was absolutely trying to look like Mr Big in the eyes of the public knowing the publicity of this case. Anyone with medical training though can see his lack of knowledge, lack of understanding. I mean his reference to differential diagnosis made me cringe on his behalf. It's like a mechanic standing up trying to come across as an expert in medicine and traumatic injuries after taking a one hour E-learning module on medical terminology. What a cringe. Mostly though he just showed a complete lack of respect for Dr Russell. She has the patience of a saint, I couldn't have sat for several hours being pushed into his trap he set, being basically called a liar without anyone peer reviewing my own medical opinion (can you imagine if Dr R shared all the confidential evidence with several ex-colleagues of her's to peer review her opinions? Brennan would not be ok with that but made out she isn't an expert because her opinion isn't peer reviewed. Was trooper Paul whose expert opinion was terrible have his expertise picked apart and his opinions peer reviewed? I was tentatively hopefully when Brennan joined as special prosecutor that he truly was looking for the truth. Now I'm not so hopeful. I think despite all their desperate reaching the commonwealth still pulled the short straw today, all this shows is they are really concerned about this expert's opinion and even knocked the dogmout to make moulds tomtry and try and disprove the 3rd party defence. For anyone not in the medical field, pattern recognition to give AJ expert opinion on the SOURCE of multiple injuries that create a PATTERN is not junk science. However, comparing human teeth to a bite marks or canine teeth to canine bite marks is not reliable. It's been proven unreliable. ..
I am an expert witness in dog bites and dog behavior . We very much need licensure in our field because this happens in every case our credentials get questioned, but I’ve always been allowed to testify and accepted as an expert by the court.
I thought she did a poor job when he zoomed in on the pic... she could't say whether some marks were teeth or claw marks, and said people pull against a bite, but if the arm was in the defensive posture as she described, the wounds went in the opposite direction
@@nelsona8285that’s crazy. Dr Jim Crosby is a forensic dog bite expert and a former police officer. He’s easy to find and teaches courses on the subject. There are at least 20 experts, besides myself with trial experience that would likely come up in a simple Google search.
Your logic is flawed because the Defense Theory is the investigators and witnesses were involved in a cover up. So EVERY investigator needs to conduct an investigation whether they themselves are involved in a cover up???? That makes no sense and it looks like the first jury didn't buy that theory.
@nicolewhite1288 I completely agree with you! Brennan was absolutely disgusting. And, if so many watching today was very put off by him, some of the jurors will be put off by him, as well.
I do not like the Special Prosecutor at all. As a lay person, he was aggressive, attacking, condescending, & at times downright rude. This is what I would think if I was a juror.
Sounds like the Defense Attorney Jackson. Both are to the point with a sprinkle of sarcasm here and there. My opinion. As mad as it'll make some people, I am one of those ones on the fence. I really have a hard time with the mob mentality of some. If you dont agree with them, you can be bullied, called names for simply asking questions. Kind of sad. Truth of what happened is all that should matter. A man lost his life. His family should be respected. Whether you agree with them or not.
first time seeing new prosector. Never thought would say this but he is harder to watch than lally. At times he made good points but the snark so over the top its hard to watch (to be fair I thought at times AJ snark was uncalled for as well but the new guy makes AJ look calm)
I’m trying so, so hard not to get sucked into this retrial. The first one took yrs off my life. I will say I’m almost 52 and lort I WISH I was I was half the badass Dr. Russell is STILL. My gosh. Bad. A. Woman. 🎉
Brennan cross examined her as if in front of a jury about issues that he could have raised during the trial. I think he made a bad miscalculation because now the defense can anticipate how he will question Dr Russell ruring the trial totally revealing his hand, his arrogance will be his downfall. Brennans condescending hostility to her was was uncalled for and over the top. Karen is allowed a defense and Brennan wants to eliminate all of the defense experts which is part of a fair trial and a right for all defendants. I think Cannone will let her in but limit her scope like she did in the first trial.
He put her on the record now to disqualify her testimony during trial. He is shaking her up now so she is angry when he asks questions in front of the jury. This is more for Karen Read to see she is screwed with the new Prosecutor on the case.
There is no excuse for anyone to be rude and condescending to another person. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Questioning could be done more respectfully.
I didn't like that Brennan was saying people said things that were never mentioned in trial. He also mislead the I Hit Him I Hit Him statements . Can you imagine how many people would die in the ER if every doctor had to go through the processes he said she didn't do i.e. visiting the accident scene or going to see the dog.Also there was NO debris field which he claimed there was . Lastly a trauma 1 ER doctor needs to be able to make a quick decisions on what happened in order to provide fast care.
That was the point. He's looking for weaknesses, how to question which rattle which don't. I don't think he believes any of them are getting benched. This is a smart strategic move.
What I couldn’t understand was his asking her why she left other options out of her report. First of all, Mr. Brennan, do you know how many reports the prosecution has? And second of all, what was she supposed to include? Could it have been drowning? Poisoning? Shark bite? Was he burned alive? Fallen down an elevator shaft? I’m sorry but she’s not going to include everything someone could have died from in her report. 🙄
SHE CREATED THE STANDARD. Her YEARS of experience as a doctor who has worked on DOG BITE'S has the SKILLS and respect from her PEERS to create a standard FOR her peers, for those coming behind her. SHE'S A MAVERICK IN HER FIELD. Sarcasm yes, disrespecting elders? Never, no where. You don't have to EVER be unprofessional and disrespectful especially in a court. If you're going to use that as logic then a lawyer looks like a loser losing if they have to lash out with sarcasm to get their points across just like everyone else. Can't RIDE the fence on that.
Peter! You scream into the mic all you want! Your excitement is contagious. It is literally the ONLY reason i changed my mind about defense attornies! You care so much about explaining these issues to us that i now see the importance for EVERYONE having a good defense attorney whether i agree with them or not. If i ever need another attorney, i can only hope they are as passionate about law and justice as you are!
It’s maddening that I haven’t heard anyone ask if there were any taillight fragments, shards, etc found in his arm! Couple that with no blood or tissue dna on ANY taillight pieces.
Replay watch… I thank you for looking at both sides and explaining. I don’t like Brennan’s ways however he took on a crap case and I believe he has alternative motives and is doing what he can. I am Justice for John OKeefe and Free Karen Read!! Thank you for breaking it down. ❤
I thought Lally said that trying to tie a bite to a specific dog is scientifically unreliable. So how can the State try to pull that now using molds of the dog's teeth?
@@bobdole57 no arm to use now just pics. I really think these marks are not from an angry german shepard. The wounds didnt look like they were fresh either. They look partially healed. These two, karen and John liked to walk and drive around two
@@Gle7799 I can conceive of all kinds of interesting ways the wounds happen. The main thing for me is there's zero convincing evidence the wounds happened because of a car accident.
WAIT!?!?!? Cloe was available? The prosecutors had a mold of her mouth? I thought she wasn't around do to being "rehomed to a farm somewhere." If this is true, when did the dog become available and were the defense given a copy of that mold?
They supposedly just went and got the mold but its very sus bc the defense couldnt go make sure the dog was actually chloe and they have not been able to examine the molds that are supposedly from chloe
Rewatch crew here Brennan was an ass today for no reason whatsoever, if dr Russel being evasive and trying to duck qs I'd understand but she didn't she was respectful and answered every qs thrown at her, Plus Brennan kept misrepresenting evidence as fact, just blatantly lied throughout, and manipulated her ans to fit his narrative rather than taking them as answered
The defense will need a 2nd bite expert, because you can't just take a mold of the dog's mouth and match it up with post mortem photos. There's a lot of variables, skin is flexible, dog's jaw movement, victim movement, post bite swelling (assuming he didn't die at the exact moment of bite) and then post mortem changes after he died.
Also, my dogs bottom teeth have shifted over the years! Noticably. This happened how long ago? 5 years? They've also had 5 years to find a German shepherd that looks the same as Chloe!
The defense could NOT present ANY alternative causes and I would still NOT believe that his injuries are from a car backing up. I was hit by an American car while crossing the street. He was going at around 25mph. I flew on the air and fell to the street (not grass) and I didn’t have ANYTHING broken.
The defense does NOT need to present ANY alternative cause and just because YOU do not BELIEVE their theory does NOT mean they did NOT present it. Just because YOU were hit by a car and did NOT break bones does NOT make that a NORMAL outcome.
If Trooper Paul is qualified to testify then surely Dr. Russell is qualified
Exactly 😅
They’ll replace Trooper Paul….he was too anxious.
Yes, the audacity to be questioning every defense expert, when he is defending Paul’s theory.
100%
I hope the defense calls trooper Paul and Procter.
I hated Brennan. I was proud of Russell for not getting frustrated with him. He lied a couple of times and it was sooooo ridiculous. He should want the truth and not block the defense from their case
Also the moment Brennan yelled that John O'Keefe foot was run over by the SUV which was a total untruth John had nothing, no injuries on his foot at all
Then we saw Brennan lie everything together.
Dr Alessi in his closing completely blew away everything Hank suggested, Alessi's Devine intervention. He dismantled all the evil things Brennan tried to do to this wonderful woman, trying to discredit her. She is a pure soul who wants real justice for John O'Keefe and Karen Read! I love that woman so much!
@@WvBeurden2222 you say that, but what Brennan stated as fact in form of question will stick in jury’s head like fact. It’s so unfair and disingenuous.
It felt like Dr.Russell was on trial in my opinion, I cannot believe the way he spoke to this woman who is more than qualified to testify as an expert
She was on trial. That was the purpose of this!
I thought the same thing. But he is not going to fool anyone as we all know that it wasn’t car accidents. And it would be nice to see his own explanation to why Johns injures appeared to be something else and not of car accidents. But of Dog bites.. I hope people and juries will see through his BS. I would like to him to explain which part of the Car that Caused such injuries on Johns Body..
There’s not 1 ounce of dog DNA on those bites. It’s impossible absolutely impossible.
Everyone on the pros side has treated her like an ignoramus. It’s absurd
@ yes I agree with you
However I have always thought that the justice should be for the truth nothing but the truth.and false accusations and wrongfully conviction of innocent people because the police didn’t do their proper investigation not the other way around.were like in this case this man he is trying to discredit the real professional.were like I. The last trial she testified.so he is trying to throw his wight around to intimidate Karen Reed lawyers and her witnesses..anyway the only thing that matters is Karen Read to set free and Justice to John O’keef
Not just an ER doctor, but an ER doctor at a trauma 1 center. This lady is a unicorn. I believe she's one of those lifelong learners and wants to help EVERYONE. I don't think she's "pro Karen," she just saw what clearly looks like bite marks and wanted to do the right thing.
I agree that she has a lot of experience and I maybe replying too soon I'm just now starting to watch this replay tonight but the biggest problem I have with this witness is that in the 1st trial and even last video she repeatedly says that she teaches nothing is 100% even stated herself in the last time she was being cross examined that was the reason she maybe sounded less than confident in the last trial but now all of the sudden she is now 100% certain?? I would hammer her on words home!
I agree that she has a lot of experience and I maybe replying too soon I'm just now starting to watch this replay tonight but the biggest problem I have with this witness is that in the 1st trial and even last video she repeatedly says that she teaches nothing is 100% even stated herself in the last time she was being cross examined that was the reason she maybe sounded less than confident in the last trial but now all of the sudden she is now 100% certain?? I would hammer her on words home!
Yeah, I also think both things could be true. She could have hit him with a car and left him to die and the dog could have been let out alone to potty come across his body and calls the injuries after death?
@deborahreed1142 are you suggesting they let her out in the front yard and didn't see him and for some reason she just chewed on his arm but nowhere else? The yard isn't that deep, and don't they have a fenced in backyard?
@@deborahreed1142 and he could have died in the house that was owned by a first responder who didn’t come outside when emergency services were on his lawn.
You said lawyers don’t lie in court. However Brennan was lying when he said shards were found in the wound.🤔
Agreed and only the disgrace proctor has said that they were in the shirt you removed them. No one else saw them in the shirt.
Yep. It wasn't testified to by the lab techs so he is mistaking evidence and testimony
He also stated swabs were taken from every hole in the sweatshirt which directly contradicts the testimony of the lab tech who received the samples.
There was also no dog DNA so how’s that working?
@@lynngallagher7456 Well gee, I don't know. I can imagine a WHOLE LOT of things considering the clothes weren't entered into evidence for SIX WEEKS!!! Give me a logical explanation for that?!
He tried to break her but he lost. This is a very good expert who has more then enough experience and knowledge.
Did you know we found Chloe?
I don't care.
Did you know we measured and made impressions of her teeth?
I don't care, wouldn't matter.
LallyGag, anything to add? Help me out here.
@@InLieuTube 😂😂
She wants to get paid from KR. I’m not sure if she truly cares who wins…but she deserves to get paid.
@@Brooke2000 if her motive was money wouldn’t she try to be on the side of the CW that has endless funds? And, not the woman being railroaded into poverty? I think Dr. Russel just knows her truth.
@@InLieuTubeExactly what are they going to compare the mold of Chloe’s teeth to? A picture of the wounds?
I had to stop watching this “interrogation”. I haven’t seen an expert treated this way before. If I were a juror I would be totally turned off and discredit him.
It made me furious
No jury
@ true!
I almost turned it cause of how he was getting on my last nerve!
I had to stop too - he was a class 1 a*hole.
Dr Russell was born for this and Karen Read deserves a FAIR trial Thank you Peter ❤✌️
Hmm if she wanted fair she would have just accepted her guilt and save the drama from the family. She is 1000% guilty.
@00KingPin she is factually innocent and was already Acquitted.
@@00KingPinwrong
@ that not true that was already debunked. She is guilty and she admitted to doing it. She just thought they would give her a slap on the wrist rather that the 15- life. She changed her mind. Look at all the pre-trial stuff.
@@00KingPinumm..you obviously have no clue how the justice system works. Not ever the bare basics 🤔
Brennan was himself testifying during his questioning of Dr. Russell. He was giving testimony and facts not in evidence as if he himself was qualified to interpret the cause of wounds. I found it highly unethical and inappropriate.
And was asking her questions as if she is a veterinarian !! It was horrible
Totally right 👋 From Holland 🇳🇱
Well he was one of Whitey Bulgers attorneys.
@@physics4290 He's testing the waters. I think we all know a lot more latitude is given in cross examination. And, this wasn't in front of a jury. It's incredibly likely she'll be testifying. It's my opinion Brennan already knows that.
Yes me too! I wish she would have said “well you say that, but I don’t KNOW that to be true.”
When a prosecutor or defense attorney questions a witness with an insulting or hostile manner this creates a perception that they don't have anything legitimate to discredit the testimony. This prosecutor's "way" of questioning wouldn't convince me .
I wholly agree that she should not ONLY be able to testify on the dog bite, but EXPAND her testimony, based on her full background. Unfortunately, I have a feeling the judge will not allow that.
Agree
Brennens arguments are a bit ridiculous. He’s clearly afraid of what she’s going to sound like in front of a jury and this is a dirty way to try and get that testimony booted
Once you learn what something looks like, you don’t need to “look it up every time”. She knows what a dog wound looks like.
You make it sound like she's an expert or something 👀
I think the whole world knows at this point that the wounds on John's arm are from a dog attack except for the Karen Read haters. .
Brennan knows that in a Level 1 Trauma center, the ER doctor needs to carefully research all possibilities of medical diagnosis. The trauma patients just need to wait hours or days while the ER doctor reads technical manuals and various articles.
CW is terrified to have her as a witness.
Ummm.... I'm pretty sure this wasn't even the main reason the motion was filed. Brennan knows she's staying in. He's using it strategically.
@@LazySusan. Lmao! Strategically? He just proved she is qualified to testify on more than just the dog bite! 😂😂
@@GPDogDrool That's not at all what I meant. I even said.... He knows (and probably expected from the beginning) she'd be testifying. Dr. Green may be an entirely different story. Regardless I still believe the CW is filing these motions as free plays.
Brennan might be checking social media to see the public’s reactions to his tactics… get a basis for how a jury may respond to his tactics…
@@teresaperry7928 I think it's a good point. And I also think Alessi said it plainly in his closing. The arguments Brennan's making are for cross. He hit the nail on the head. Brennan seemed to be taking advantage of the opportunity to see where he could trip her up, where her strengths were, how she responded to photos vs. material, etc.. He could ask questions he didn't know the answers to (within reason). Simply looking at it as a legal maneuver, I think it's quite interesting.
He never broke her even after 2 full days of questioning her. He tried his hardest but her expertise and experience totally shut him down
She kept her integrity intact .
He can’t break her because she’s the read deal, smart with top notch credentials, she’s earned the right to have her opinion treated with gravitas . But his repeated disrespect damaged her, her opinion hasn’t changed but if compare her testimonies, she’s verbally less self assured. She’ll be more apprehensive and less authoritative coming trial and I think this was what the prosecutor’s objective was.
@@keristritikus6333 she really did but didn’t he go on and on. He really overplayed it.
💪🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
No dog DNA how is that even possible?
Yes I do remember the FBI people saying that the injuries did not come from a car impact
Not only that, but the AARCA rocket scientists also said Karen Read's car never hit John Okeefe or was involved in a pedestrian collision, so that's a double whammy. Too bad the keystone cops of Canton and corrupt MSP didn't document their so-called car accident case with REAL evidence instead of planted evidence. I just want to see the photo they took of the "cracked" tailight" but I never will, because it doesn't exist.
I agree with what Alessi said: Let the jury decide. The CW can get their own expert to rebut and support their theory, if they can find one.
The CW already has a court recognized dog bite expert on their witness list. The Defense couldn't find an expert before the last trial and out of no where came Dr Russell in the middle of the trial.
@@nelsona8285I didn’t see his name on the witness list. But even if they have this opinion on their side, the CW would have had every right to call him as a rebuttal witness. Why didn’t they?
@@TheTrialChannel_ He's a witness now, they couldn't get them in time during the first trial because they weren't expecting a headline chaser to suddenly jump to the defense mid trial. Unlike the fraud Dr. Russell, the current CW witness is a dog bite expert and has testified as such in multiple trials.
@@TheTrialChannel_ I am referring to witnesses for the second trial. Remember, Dr Russell showed up in the middle of the first trial claiming the wounds on the arm were bite marks. The CW doesn't want to incur the cost for a rebuttal witness in the second trial since the opinion of Dr Russell regarding the wounds being dog bites is junk. The CW also has spent alot of money for an independent accident reconstructionist which I do think they need to explain the accident in a better presentation than the first trial. The CW also has an expert that will testify to the Lexus computer information. In the first trial, CW spent money for two experts to debunk the Defense lie about the 2:27 Google search.
My question to you is why couldn't Jackson or Yanetti find a court recognized dog bite expert BEFORE the first trial started? There are MANY of these experts that testify in court when home insurance companies are sued for home owner's claims against a family dog biting someone. The No 1 claimant in these suits are postal carriers who often have only their statement and the injury when claiming a dog bite.
@@nelsona8285 The Court said to testify about wounds it had to be a Medical Doctor. So no the CW did not have someone who could testify.
I truly believe she needs to be allowed to testify at her trial
Karen? I don’t think the jury would like her and it would not be in her best interest imo.
@@JoyceKayenot Karen! Dr. Russell
@@JoyceKayeThe jury will love her. She’s amazing.
Let them both testify. The ship would surely sink
@@JCM-ry6de generally it’s not in the defendant’s interest to testify, but hey, go for it….
Yanetti yawning while Brennan was questioning the expert was hilarious 😂 same Yanetti, same 😊
Considering that in the past hearings, he has admitted to not being fully aware of the prior trial, I found him to be pompous and manipulative. He did a lot of gaslighting, and word twisting. I think Dr Russell was grace under pressure. She didn't let him push her buttons. I can't say I'm surprised by his demeanor and presentation style based on his resume.
He’s used to being a criminal defense attorney. I don’t care for him at all.
He’s the worst
It’s sad when you want Lally back. Lally at least wasn’t disrespectful
I agree. In the end, she stands her ground and sounds more credible.
Amen!
I think Alesi totally rocked his closing argument. He is an amazing attorney.
100 Percent!
Not only was Brennan extremely rude to a well educated witness I think he was disingenuous when asking if she was an accident reconstructionist. That is not why she is here and he knows that. I do not believe AJ would treat a witness like her in this manner. Only witnesses like Proctor, who is to say the least not a credible witness.
@Bourne3 agreed, even with the more obstinate witnesses like Jen mccabe AJ had a softer approach until they dodged his qs
Yes pls Peter do follow every moment of these hearings! Will be fascinating to hear how Brennan wants to exclude the Arca testimony. Thanking you so much!🙏😊🌟
Reminder or fun fact if you weren’t aware - Alessi joined Pro Bono!**
Listening to the lawyer who didn’t seem to understand trauma medicine effectively testifying about the state’s case made me come to the conclusion that the state doesn’t not have a case regarding to the car accident. As someone in health care, I would be leaning against the state if I were on the jury.
Hated Brennen. I thought he was rude. Cannone must let her in because she already did in the first trial.
To not let her in, Bev would have to admit she was wrong the first trial
@@riannarodriguez9759 👏👏 Everyone seems to be missing the fact this is indeed the case. The prosecution is so strong they suddenly want to say the judge was WRONG for allowing any of the defense experts ? Yet Trooper Paul was a genius. 😂😂
Bev, being Bev, will most likely not let her in but I hope I’m wrong. Seems like Bev is pretty corrupt in my opinion.
Hard to picture the tail light chomping down JOK's arm like a Turkey leg
@@justiceforall1631 the tail light that is, according to him, glass one minute and plastic the next, because facts don’t matter to him.
😂😂😂😂 I appreciate the visual! This was so ridiculous today!
I would like him to explain which part of the of Car that Caused such injury’s to see if he is fully qualified …to be prosecutor..
Exactly!! 😅😅@summerbright2769
@ I would love to be on the ethics committee that reviews his participation in this case.
The bit about methodology was so frustrating to me because it's trying to distill a multi-disciplinary approach into a single unified one. To diagnose a heart attack, a doctor uses laboratory testing (which uses multiple scientific methods and assays), ECG readings, physical presentation, in addition to experience and education to diagnose a heart attack. There are general guidelines that most heart attacks will align with but there are unusual presentations that can only be caught by using all of these methods together. Due to the differences in dog breeds there can't be a definitive "dog bite standard".
I was thinking about autoimmune diseases. Is all about markers, elimination and sometimes the person even starts suppressive treatment without a certain diagnosis, because the markers don’t point to a specific condition.
Always ask for cpk test, as ecg may not detect!!
Hank Brennan grates on my nerves. I do not like him and I would HATE him if I were a juror
This Prosecutor He reminds me of someone in England who l used to work with.who has similar voice to him.and I never liked him as he always appeared to be Rude and arrogant just like him..
He’s no more arrogant and condescending then Miss Reed’s attorneys… They were arrogant and condescending. They were horrible to people… Why can’t he? You guys just already think she is not guilty which is so funny to me.
@@lynngallagher7456 I agree but there’s difference between this Brennan And Karen Reads Lawyers they are looking for truth and justice
Were this one he is after over qualified waitress .and he is not looking for justice he is looking to victimise innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit. And he trying to discredit this wonderful lady with her many years of experience to change her mind there’s no comparison between Alan Jackson.. and him Alan Jackson is relevant and fighting for the rights and truth of justice
He badgered her for not going to the scene when his lead investigator didnt go to the scene yet decided Karen hit him.
Brennan is awful. Its embarrassing. I feel he has no idea what he is doing or what a hypocrite he is being
yeah but live by the sword die by the sword, if he can ask it, so can they of other witnesses and investigators.
Amazing, Lally said during the first trial that teeth comparison to wounds is a junk science yet they are going to try to do it with Chloe's mold. Basically volunteering that they are presenting junk science.
@@MikeAK44 with a dog nobody has seen for a few years.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Yes! 💯
Shes going to have to do a good job of presenting why its junk science. The angel of the dog, angle of the arm, strength of the bite, whether the arm is flexed, momentum. All things that cannot be determined. There are too many variables.
@@KiraSieni Yep, it has been proven that you cannot match a specific bite to a specific set of teeth because there are indeed too many variables. Lally knew that but he wasn't intelligent enough to realize that that is not the same as identifying that a mark is from a bite (or from a car). Obviously those two are two very different things. And yet, they are apparently now going to try to prove that this mark doesn't come from Chloe? But that is irrelevant. They have to prove it was from a car lol not that it wasn't from a dog so why would Chloes dental impression mean anything at all lol.
The FBI medical examiner also said it wasn't caused by a car...so...
No FBI medical examiner testified in the first trial so where do you get your information?
From the exculpatory evidence provided by the FBI. @@nelsona8285
This information was brought in by Atty. Alessi in the redirect today.
@@kristiefanning161 So did you also illegally obtain a copy of the DOJ 3,000 page Grand Jury report? Because the rest of us didn't get that "exculpatory" evidence you claim to have seen.
@@beththompson417 I re-watched Court TV re-direct starting at 5 hours 12 minutes and saw NO reference about an FBI medical examiner claiming John O'Keefe's injuries were not caused by a car. Time Stamp 5 hours 54 minutes Defense said Hypothetical statement from Dr Walsh said "A vehicle backing into O'Keefe IS ONE OF MANY POSSIBLE causes of his death"
Imagine being in a Trauma 1 ED, seeing thousands of patients and running through differentials all the time and come up against this guy. He wanted to know back in December why she didn’t list all the papers she read on her CV. You don’t do that. My CV would have been volumes. You put peer reviewed papers you’ve written on your CV.
That was definitely cringe. Does this prosecutor put "I read Black's Law Dictionary" on his CV? 😅
He plays dumb all through this and ends up looking very stupid
@@worsethanjoerogan8061 sorry I don’t know 🤷🏼♀️ … what is a CV ?
@@linh9768curriculum vitae.. a resume.
@linh8768 a CV is the academic equivalent of a resume. It list qualifications, certifications, and notable academic achievements, such as published academic papers.
@@jakecarlson3709 ahhh! Thx much
dr kinsey was on Brandi's channel. He ALSO said on her channel that he did not follow the trial and he was only looking what she sent him to do the interview. He hardly did research like the defense's medical expert did. What we learned is that the prosecution is watching RUclips. And they aren't able to get much. Their case REMAINS weak.
Dr Kinsey also said he didn't think it was caused by the taillight but Prosecutor didn't mention that lol Hope Defence watch the interview too so if Dr Russell is allowed to be an expert (imo she should be) if Prosecutor brings it up Defence can recross with that info too.
What has puzzled me from the beginning is why no one is referring to the strangeness of a man standing on the road on a cold night instead of going inside after the car leaves. Even stranger; he obligingly stands on the road as the car stops, goes into reverse, accelerates and runs into him. And doesn't take two steps to escape.
It sounds like the victim was pretty intoxicated that night.
@@hollytalbott7291You would have to be more than intoxicated to stand still for that. You would have to be unconscious.
If I were her I would have told him I’ve answered your question, asked him if that was his personal opinion? He is extremely rude and disrespectful. Being a lawyer doesn’t give you an excuse to disrespect someone’s life work anymore than being a Doctor does to a patient. It’s surprising how “acceptable” being unprofessional is in this field. He appears very inadequate speaking to her that way. Way out of line.
Oh yeah, when I was 5 a DOG bit off my shoe……..smh
Also, this judge was a joke during the last case and needs to step aside for this one. She is following the same path she did previously.
Dr Russell is the bomb!
💪🔥🔥🔥
By the way, did anybody else notice that he said OJO was launched 7’ from the road? So now the theory changed? Is not 30’ anymore? How did the deceased position changed between trials?
Like a lot of the women that i look up to and have learned from, she is a shining example of a strong woman who is confident in her knowledge and her expertise. The prosecutor picked the wrong person to try and undermine and undercut. Particularly when juxtaposed against the Commonwealth's collective of corrupt incompetents. I wish she would have said that i cannot identify a book that i referred to as a definitve resource because i have not written it yet.
If Walsh said no dog bite - why didn't they get him to testify in 1st trial
Because he also said he wasn't hit by a car
Dr Russell is a true unicorn. I would love to sit down with her to talk about things.
I'd like to know why her medical career ended up in Prison medical care.
Dr Russell worked a trauma one ER, was a medical examiner and she is also a former Massachusetts cop!
When he calls the incisors, in✂️, I just SCREAM.
Yes! Please continue following the pretrial hearings/motions in the KR trial! Such an interesting case.
She is an expert, he is asking for something to be explained in a simple manner that is complicated, he is refusing to accept her answer because it doesn’t meet his requirement, either because he is being obtuse or because he is being ingenious neither make him look good.
He's being a binger and it's the worst look a lawyer can have
@@Cassiee102what does binger mean in this context? Tia
@jenniferrebeccaart binger was the prosecutor for the Rittenhouse trial and he was just as condescending and infuriating as this prosecutor
@@Cassiee102same sneaky weasel voice as that guy from rittenhouse!!!
Because they all know that it wasn’t A Car Accident. Even before she got arrested they knew it wasn’t car accident.As their own investigators Corrupted Michael Proctor said himself that initially he thought it was do with fight. But then obviously the killers were his own best friend so he hard to change KR within 16 hours without even properly investigation. The question is to the Prosecutors is The Investigator Michael Proctor qualified to be detective.. and all the others who who participated in this case are they
qualified to be detectives
54:13 idk how an imprint of Chloe’s teeth 2+ years after the incident would be allowable. How in the world does the defense KNOW it’s actually Chloe. If they allowed any imprints of her teeth tk be allowed this late in the gsme- we know the CW has zero desire for actual justice
It’s so aggravating. The CW needs to prove he was hit by a car. He wasn’t. The defense doesnt need to prove he was bitten by a dog. But they did. In my opinion, Aunty Bev is salty because the defense lawyers and experts are all smarter and more qualified than her.
He was clipped.
Anyone following this case knows Officer O’Keefe was not hit by a car. I’m a MA resident and the police corruption is rampant to a degree you can’t imagine.
I don’t understand why the CW is fighting this expert. In the spirit of transparency and the pursuit of JUSTICE, the jury should be allowed to hear this expert testimony. It’s obvious to anybody with discernment that the CW is threatened because they don’t have an expert to refute her testimony.
They do have an expert already on their witness list that is COURT RECOGNIZED for dog bites. They don't think the claim should be allowed because there is no basis for her opinion and the evidence she did not look at shows it was a vehicle accident. No Dog DNA found on ANY hole in John O'Keefe's sweatshirt should block ANY argument there was a dog bite.
They are draining KR’s funds. It’s ridiculous- let the jury decide, the A said
They’re fighting all of the experts. They don’t want to have a defense.
They would like to get rid of all the defense witnesses.
I believe they are trying to eliminate this witness due to the jury finding reasonable doubt. Also it takes the pressure off the prosecution by not discussing the inadequacy of collecting the swabs in a timely regulation manner.
Dr. Russell rocks! She is more than qualified. Shame on Hanky Panky for lying, disrespecting, and belittling this expert.
I follwed this case from the beginning, imo the tail light did not cause those injuries. I think dr. Russell should be allowed to testify. This dr. Has so much experience, and has so much training and life experience. Also i thought i disliked Lally, but the new guy brings my level of dislike went through the roof.
The taillight doesn’t shatter like that.
@@mariekirby2833 never thought I’d miss Lally’s voice 😂
@@JCM-ry6de why are there no pieces of the tail light when she backed into his car at his house then? hmm maybe cause it was already broken
@@JCM-ry6deThat is why he kept repeating “glass” the whole time. He was misquoting evidence like crazy.
@@MatthewFors-f8x Or maybe because it didn’t shattered. Wow, you didn’t thought about that one.
My dislike for Brennen has nothing to do with style. He’s dishonest incorrect, and purposefully obtuse. Not acceptable in any circumstances to me.
Brennan is listed as 1 of Top 100 Trial Attorneys in the nation. If you could afford him, you would want him to take your case. Where is Yanetti ranked?
@@nelsona8285those rankings are purchased. I was in PR at a National company. We would get these solicitations on the mail. You pay to have profile included. Usually the PR department writes it and sends it in either a head shot.
@@nelsona8285also f Brennan is a stooge, and I’m sure he is, there are political reasons for ensuring he’s in there.
@@nelsona8285 No, I would not want that embarrassing man to represent me. If you had a medical background, you’d agree.
@@SandyKnauerMorgan Dr Russell admitted she wasn't a court expert in a field of MEDICINE that she studied and practiced in the ER., but she wants the court to recognize her as a dog bite expert when she has NEVER testified in court pertaining to dog bites before. There are MANY court recognized dog bite experts that testify in insurance cases around the country when people claim a home owner's dog bit them. Why couldn't Jackson and Yanetti, experienced litigators, find one of those experts BEFORE the first trial started since it is a CRITICAL part of their Defense? My answer: No dog bite expert would agree with their claim.
I always appreciate your succinct recap in a reasonable timeframe!
Thank you, Peter.
Dr. Russell was also, for 7 yrs, the California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation Chief Medical Executive - Retired, Certified Correctional Healthcare Professional.
She stated in the first case, she attended and spoke with numerous inmates who suffered dog bites from K9 police dogs.
Yes she should be allowed to testify
how is he going to present his theory using these same standards to have any opinion, he basically wouldn't be able to present any experts for the State if they apply these same criteria.
I was stunned when Brennan questioned (attacked) Dr. Russell for not having her opinion on O'Keefe's wounds peer-reviewed. I have never heard any other expert witness challenged for this reason. Since when is it required for an expert opinion to be peer-reviewed? It's an OPINION, it's not a journal article or other publication.
Well, it was reviewed and apparently CHANGED by the Defense attorney who also is not a dog bite expert.
@@nelsona8285umm….just looking at that wound it looks like a dog attack.
Her peers with forty years of experience, ER experience....she has no peers....
@@archangel807 ther are MANY court recognized dog bite experts in the USA. If she wants to call herself a dog bite expert, she should know who these people are in order to consult with them. Vinni Politan interview with on of them shows the experts don't agree with her.
I loved this! It was interesting to hear the lawyers strategies and approaches. It was very cool to watch the expert hold her ground! Thanks for reviewing this!
Attorney ALLASSi was MASTERFUL and HIT on every point HANk tried to make
This Prosecutor was irritating to me.
WHAT IF ANYTHING was more bothersome with him than LollyGag. LOL
To me the way he was undermining her credibility.
Why? Because he’s acting like the defense? This trial will be much different, thank God. She should be allowed to be an expert, but he is also allowed to vigorously cross examine her. This Daubert hearing wasn’t the time for a lot of that, but he will have his chance. A preview of what is to come. Looking forward to it!
@@InLieuTubeBrennan’s lying about evidence was bothersome. That is beyond bothersome it is unethical.
😮if a FBI examiner said it wasn't a dog bite then why didn't the prosecution use that in the first trial .
This! In Brennan’s cross examination of Dr Russell, he blatantly lied and made misleading statements. I don’t believe everything he says because of this.
Personally, if I was a juror I would find it a lot more acceptable to be aggressive with a counter witness or counter character witness. But when you’re dealing with experts, it rubs me the wrong way when you’re overly aggressive with them about their expertise. So nobody wants me on a jury now lol
This!! This is exactly what I said, there is a time for it, and this was not the time. He was offensive toward her.
@@RealityCheck24 Perhaps this isn't his only gear. This is a hearing. And cross examination. It is not the trial. And, I think it may be a bit hasty to judge him on one interaction with a witness. But, I understand people have first impressions and they may be hard to shake. However, as one of the top 100 trial attorneys in the country, I'm reserving judgement a bit longer.
If Mr good cop had investigated the dog and taken DNA samples, we wouldn’t even have tge question.
We found out today that EVERY hole in John O'Keefe's sweatshirt was swabbed and NO DOG DNA was found.
Yes but didn't corrupted Proctor have his clothes in his possession before DNA
@@nelsona8285But the shirt was wet from the snow, thrown on the floor in the ER, and then thrown in the trunk of the authorities for 2 weeks before testing.
@@nelsona8285 that's not abnormal given that it was wet and the DNA would have come from saliva.
@@JoanneBates-bt4xxthere's so much corruption
Dr Marie Russell. is a badass💪🔥🔥🔥
You literally don't get more qualified to testify as this witness. Her testimony was very credible and convincing to me as I watched the trial. I don't think the prosecution would be fighting to exclude this witness if she did not have the very comprehensive experience and credibility that she has.
Actually...... You do. There's Animal Behavior experts, Dog bite experts, Emergency Veterinary medicine experts, Most pH.ds, peer reviewed articles or books on their line of work. I'm not sure why if Karen Read wants to push this narrative, why she's insisting with someone who is yes a very experienced ER doctor who's had experience in law enforcement earlier in her career. But, that's a very broad topic. Not to mention you're flying her from the other side of the country. She's never testified before about dog bites and gets tripped up on cross.
@@LazySusan.actually if you followed this case you would know NONE of those are allowed to testify to any of that per MA criminal law. So the comment, with all due respect, is completely pointless because NONE of those are medical doctors and therefore per MA criminal trial law unable to testify whatsoever to opine to injuries causation. Also, I think I’m going to roll with the person who has treated tens of thousands of dog bite wounds here.
@@LazySusan.also, per Brennan, there are NO “dog bite experts” because there’s no “methodology”. Which is a joke haha
@@JenHellmichSackett I have followed this case. For 2 years. Fully. Every hearing. Just because I may not have the rules of criminal evidence for the CW of Massachusetts memorized doesn't mean I'm not competent to make a informed opinion on this expert. Can you please direct me to the precedent for which you're referring to? From what I can find (which to be fair is a quick search) doesn't preclude the referenced experts from testifying as Veterinary emergency doctors, for instance, do require a medical license (rules 702 and 703).
@@LazySusan. So sorry if you took my comment as rude, that was totally not my intention but in re-reading it I can see how it sounded! It’s tough just reading context on typing but the judge stated it very clearly in her own ruling in trial 1 & then Alessi cited the rule and quote she gave in his closing. He references the law and rule #-I’ll try to re-listen later and send you the time stamp on here!
As always great recap! I watched Melanie Little, EDB, and always come back here to see your insight. Thanks
As a healthcare professional Brennan came across pompous, rude, condescending and mostly idiotic 😬 this was beyond the scope of the purpose of the daubert hearing, he was absolutely trying to look like Mr Big in the eyes of the public knowing the publicity of this case. Anyone with medical training though can see his lack of knowledge, lack of understanding. I mean his reference to differential diagnosis made me cringe on his behalf. It's like a mechanic standing up trying to come across as an expert in medicine and traumatic injuries after taking a one hour E-learning module on medical terminology. What a cringe.
Mostly though he just showed a complete lack of respect for Dr Russell. She has the patience of a saint, I couldn't have sat for several hours being pushed into his trap he set, being basically called a liar without anyone peer reviewing my own medical opinion (can you imagine if Dr R shared all the confidential evidence with several ex-colleagues of her's to peer review her opinions? Brennan would not be ok with that but made out she isn't an expert because her opinion isn't peer reviewed. Was trooper Paul whose expert opinion was terrible have his expertise picked apart and his opinions peer reviewed?
I was tentatively hopefully when Brennan joined as special prosecutor that he truly was looking for the truth. Now I'm not so hopeful. I think despite all their desperate reaching the commonwealth still pulled the short straw today, all this shows is they are really concerned about this expert's opinion and even knocked the dogmout to make moulds tomtry and try and disprove the 3rd party defence. For anyone not in the medical field, pattern recognition to give AJ expert opinion on the SOURCE of multiple injuries that create a PATTERN is not junk science. However, comparing human teeth to a bite marks or canine teeth to canine bite marks is not reliable. It's been proven unreliable.
..
You’re very smart and insightful. Thank you!!
And mr " just is " is the police expert. Please
I love the way the expert kepted her cool.
I am an expert witness in dog bites and dog behavior . We very much need licensure in our field because this happens in every case our credentials get questioned, but I’ve always been allowed to testify and accepted as an expert by the court.
Interesting. What are your thoughts about the scratches?
I thought she did a poor job when he zoomed in on the pic... she could't say whether some marks were teeth or claw marks, and said people pull against a bite, but if the arm was in the defensive posture as she described, the wounds went in the opposite direction
A key part of their Defense and the Read Defense Team couldn't find a court recognized dog bite expert before the first trial started.
Hi, do you agree those injuries look like they were made by a dog attack?
@@nelsona8285that’s crazy. Dr Jim Crosby is a forensic dog bite expert and a former police officer. He’s easy to find and teaches courses on the subject. There are at least 20 experts, besides myself with trial experience that would likely come up in a simple Google search.
1:03:00
And thats the problem. The cops didn't rule out anything else or even investigate anything else
Your logic is flawed because the Defense Theory is the investigators and witnesses were involved in a cover up. So EVERY investigator needs to conduct an investigation whether they themselves are involved in a cover up???? That makes no sense and it looks like the first jury didn't buy that theory.
Brennan was very disrespectful & it's not a good look. Love Karen's team - they seem classier
Disagree. Not disrespectful at all
@nicolewhite1288 I completely agree with you! Brennan was absolutely disgusting. And, if so many watching today was very put off by him, some of the jurors will be put off by him, as well.
@@SGP1963 Thanks Paul
@@SGP1963ok Jen.
So the same way Jackson and Yanttie were during the last trial.. what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
She understands the subject he does not.
I do not like the Special Prosecutor at all. As a lay person, he was aggressive, attacking, condescending, & at times downright rude. This is what I would think if I was a juror.
completely agree
I think it's just his job and he does have a point to prove. This next trial will be very different
Sounds like the Defense Attorney Jackson. Both are to the point with a sprinkle of sarcasm here and there. My opinion. As mad as it'll make some people, I am one of those ones on the fence. I really have a hard time with the mob mentality of some. If you dont agree with them, you can be bullied, called names for simply asking questions. Kind of sad. Truth of what happened is all that should matter. A man lost his life. His family should be respected. Whether you agree with them or not.
I think the jury will dislike him.
So rude and really absusive.
Well done Peter. Thank you for the breakdown!
first time seeing new prosector. Never thought would say this but he is harder to watch than lally. At times he made good points but the snark so over the top its hard to watch (to be fair I thought at times AJ snark was uncalled for as well but the new guy makes AJ look calm)
I’m trying so, so hard not to get sucked into this retrial. The first one took yrs off my life. I will say I’m almost 52 and lort I WISH I was I was half the badass Dr. Russell is STILL. My gosh. Bad. A. Woman. 🎉
Thanks for summarizing a full day of testimony and providing all these relevant comments. I really appreciated.
Brennan cross examined her as if in front of a jury about issues that he could have raised during the trial. I think he made a bad miscalculation because now the defense can anticipate how he will question Dr Russell ruring the trial totally revealing his hand, his arrogance will be his downfall. Brennans condescending hostility to her was was uncalled for and over the top. Karen is allowed a defense and Brennan wants to eliminate all of the defense experts which is part of a fair trial and a right for all defendants. I think Cannone will let her in but limit her scope like she did in the first trial.
With expert witnesses, attorneys are many times more hostile towards them when the jury isn't present.
He put her on the record now to disqualify her testimony during trial. He is shaking her up now so she is angry when he asks questions in front of the jury. This is more for Karen Read to see she is screwed with the new Prosecutor on the case.
There is no excuse for anyone to be rude and condescending to another person. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Questioning could be done more respectfully.
I didn't like that Brennan was saying people said things that were never mentioned in trial. He also mislead the I Hit Him I Hit Him statements . Can you imagine how many people would die in the ER if every doctor had to go through the processes he said she didn't do i.e. visiting the accident scene or going to see the dog.Also there was NO debris field which he claimed there was . Lastly a trauma 1 ER doctor needs to be able to make a quick decisions on what happened in order to provide fast care.
That was the point. He's looking for weaknesses, how to question which rattle which don't. I don't think he believes any of them are getting benched. This is a smart strategic move.
What I couldn’t understand was his asking her why she left other options out of her report. First of all, Mr. Brennan, do you know how many reports the prosecution has? And second of all, what was she supposed to include? Could it have been drowning? Poisoning? Shark bite? Was he burned alive? Fallen down an elevator shaft? I’m sorry but she’s not going to include everything someone could have died from in her report. 🙄
People who are doubting this woman, what are you smoking
SHE CREATED THE STANDARD. Her YEARS of experience as a doctor who has worked on DOG BITE'S has the SKILLS and respect from her PEERS to create a standard FOR her peers, for those coming behind her. SHE'S A MAVERICK IN HER FIELD.
Sarcasm yes, disrespecting elders? Never, no where. You don't have to EVER be unprofessional and disrespectful especially in a court. If you're going to use that as logic then a lawyer looks like a loser losing if they have to lash out with sarcasm to get their points across just like everyone else. Can't RIDE the fence on that.
Didn’t they go through a whole rigamarole about how bite mark matching was discredited, yet now they’re going after her for not doing it? 🤯
The CW speaks out of any side of its mouth that benefits it, completely disingenuous nonstop
Very interesting trial. Please keep up the updates
Peter! You scream into the mic all you want! Your excitement is contagious. It is literally the ONLY reason i changed my mind about defense attornies! You care so much about explaining these issues to us that i now see the importance for EVERYONE having a good defense attorney whether i agree with them or not. If i ever need another attorney, i can only hope they are as passionate about law and justice as you are!
Agreed! I love when Peter gets excited. It’s why we love him.
It’s maddening that I haven’t heard anyone ask if there were any taillight fragments, shards, etc found in his arm! Couple that with no blood or tissue dna on ANY taillight pieces.
Replay watch… I thank you for looking at both sides and explaining. I don’t like Brennan’s ways however he took on a crap case and I believe he has alternative motives and is doing what he can. I am Justice for John OKeefe and Free Karen Read!! Thank you for breaking it down. ❤
Her interest in this case is a plus! When you know you know! She answered the call!!
After the Chloe reveal, this hearing makes A LOT more sense.
Well it came a little late isn't it? After the 1st trial? After 2 yrs since the defense was asking info of it and looking into it?
How does it poke a hole in anything to get Chloe's mouth bite? When a dog is ripping/grabbing/ etc? His questions prove NOTHING.
I found him to be a bully & rude & too forceful with his words - if I were in the jury I would already not respect his actions or honesty
@@Greenfields-w2p and his flat head could indicate that he has emotional issues. He wants to question medical experts; he needs to be questioned.
I thought Lally said that trying to tie a bite to a specific dog is scientifically unreliable. So how can the State try to pull that now using molds of the dog's teeth?
@@bobdole57 no arm to use now just pics. I really think these marks are not from an angry german shepard. The wounds didnt look like they were fresh either. They look partially healed. These two, karen and John liked to walk and drive around two
@@Gle7799 I can conceive of all kinds of interesting ways the wounds happen. The main thing for me is there's zero convincing evidence the wounds happened because of a car accident.
Dr. held her own. He tried her and he looked stupid.
Disagree. I think the expert looked ill informed
@@SGP1963 OK, Paul.
@@SGP1963ok Jen
@@SGP1963 you obviously have zero medical or ethical experience or education.
I@SGP1963 I agree. I think he proved she has an agenda.
WAIT!?!?!? Cloe was available? The prosecutors had a mold of her mouth? I thought she wasn't around do to being "rehomed to a farm somewhere." If this is true, when did the dog become available and were the defense given a copy of that mold?
They supposedly just went and got the mold but its very sus bc the defense couldnt go make sure the dog was actually chloe and they have not been able to examine the molds that are supposedly from chloe
They did this so we can shut down turtle and Karen. The public is believing this master manipulators. She did it!
Rewatch crew here Brennan was an ass today for no reason whatsoever, if dr Russel being evasive and trying to duck qs I'd understand but she didn't she was respectful and answered every qs thrown at her, Plus Brennan kept misrepresenting evidence as fact, just blatantly lied throughout, and manipulated her ans to fit his narrative rather than taking them as answered
How does a judge allow a lawyer to blatantly lie?
@littlebirdie0809 I don't know she's not supposed to but she did
I think there have been over 6 experts on both sides now that have essentially said this could not have been a car hit.
Condescending rude jerk is correct Your Honor.
I hate that lawyer. I fast forwarded because I couldn’t take his condescending attitude.
Me too
I try not to say I hate anyone but it comes very close in this case.
The defense will need a 2nd bite expert, because you can't just take a mold of the dog's mouth and match it up with post mortem photos. There's a lot of variables, skin is flexible, dog's jaw movement, victim movement, post bite swelling (assuming he didn't die at the exact moment of bite) and then post mortem changes after he died.
Also, my dogs bottom teeth have shifted over the years! Noticably. This happened how long ago? 5 years? They've also had 5 years to find a German shepherd that looks the same as Chloe!
Peter, I appreciate you so much for sharing your knowledge with us, thank you so much
The defense could NOT present ANY alternative causes and I would still NOT believe that his injuries are from a car backing up. I was hit by an American car while crossing the street. He was going at around 25mph. I flew on the air and fell to the street (not grass) and I didn’t have ANYTHING broken.
The defense does NOT need to present ANY alternative cause and just because YOU do not BELIEVE their theory does NOT mean they did NOT present it. Just because YOU were hit by a car and did NOT break bones does NOT make that a NORMAL outcome.
Its not the defenses job to PROVE anything!!
@@teemyoutube2066 yeah, but I still don’t believe it and that’s why I would never be part of the jury in this case 😜